Pentax K20D or Canon 40D or Canon XSI

Guest

I primarily shoot 35mm, medium format and large format. New baby
coming next month so its time for a dSLR.

I'm considering the Pentax K20D, Canon 40D, or upcoming Canon XSI.

Mom has an old Canon EOS film camera she no longer uses. She would
give me the 28-105mm USM lens and the cheaper 75-300mm lens she has.

Pentax K20D advantages

+ More detail and usable megapixels (15 megapixels vs. 10 and
initial test results show that these extra megapixels are quite good)
+ In-body IS works with older, used Pentax lenses (like a 50mm I
would buy)
+ Extensive weather-sealing
+ 18-55mm II kit lens is better than most other kit lens. I would
probably at a 50mm prime.

Canon 40D advantages

+ Free 28-105mm USM lens. Doubt I would ever use the 75-300. What
other lens would I add??
+ Better/faster low-light AF
+ Better FPS (not important to me)
+ Broader selection of lenses (probably not be important to me)
+ Proven, well-tested and reviewed camera

Advertisements

I primarily shoot 35mm, medium format and large format. New baby
coming next month so its time for a dSLR.

I'm considering the Pentax K20D, Canon 40D, or upcoming Canon XSI.

Mom has an old Canon EOS film camera she no longer uses. She would
give me the 28-105mm USM lens and the cheaper 75-300mm lens she has.

Pentax K20D advantages

+ More detail and usable megapixels (15 megapixels vs. 10 and
initial test results show that these extra megapixels are quite good)
+ In-body IS works with older, used Pentax lenses (like a 50mm I
would buy)
+ Extensive weather-sealing
+ 18-55mm II kit lens is better than most other kit lens. I would
probably at a 50mm prime.

Canon 40D advantages

+ Free 28-105mm USM lens. Doubt I would ever use the 75-300. What
other lens would I add??
+ Better/faster low-light AF
+ Better FPS (not important to me)
+ Broader selection of lenses (probably not be important to me)
+ Proven, well-tested and reviewed camera

Advertisements

I primarily shoot 35mm, medium format and large format. New baby
: coming next month so its time for a dSLR.
:
: I'm considering the Pentax K20D, Canon 40D, or upcoming Canon XSI.
:
: Mom has an old Canon EOS film camera she no longer uses. She would
: give me the 28-105mm USM lens and the cheaper 75-300mm lens she has.

I have the f/3.5-4.5 version of the 28-105 (I think it also once came in an
f/4-5.6 version) and have found it to be a pretty good lens. I don't use it a
lot, but it's nice to have when I do need it.

: Pentax K20D advantages
:
: + More detail and usable megapixels (15 megapixels vs. 10 and
: initial test results show that these extra megapixels are quite good)
: + In-body IS works with older, used Pentax lenses (like a 50mm I
: would buy)
: + Extensive weather-sealing
: + 18-55mm II kit lens is better than most other kit lens. I would
: probably at a 50mm prime.
:
: Canon 40D advantages
:
: + Free 28-105mm USM lens. Doubt I would ever use the 75-300. What
: other lens would I add??

On a 1.6 crop factor digital, your 28-105 is a moderately long telephoto. So
you'll want something wider. I've had good results with my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.
It has the advantage of not losing aperture at the long end. It's a bit big
and heavy, though.

: + Better/faster low-light AF

If you're going to shoot in low light and need a lens for that purpose, I
recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It would give you about the same field of view
as a 50mm lens on your 35mm film camera.

Unless you routinely print larger than 8.5x11 then, in reality, for amateur
uses megapixels above 6 in dSLRs are vastly over-rated and invisible in the
final print.
If you have no particular manufacturer loyalty/religion/blind faith then the
things to consider are:
Lenses you may already own--Canon in your case.
Camera vs lens image stabilization: not Canon but available in some Canon,
Sigma and Tamron lenses. Once you use image stabilization you will see the
value immediately.
Self cleaning sensor.
Live view: pointless except for rare occasions in my opinion after using
many, many P&S and EVF cameras, but what do I know. Bracketing is more
useful and that is in every dSLR.
If you plan to get high quality out of your new toy then you need to learn
how to process raw images and budget for whatever version of Adobe you
prefer. You also need to invest in a monitor calibration device and
understand color management.
If you plan to shoot only jpegs then Nikon has an edge in in-camera jpeg
processing (in truth I have only Nikons and have no clue how to use the jpeg
functions as I only shoot raw).
There is no reason not to consider the higher end Sony as well as the
Olympus line.
Noise is an over-rated bugaboo unless you feel the need to shoot at all
times above ISO 400-800. If you must shoot by candlelight then really the
only game in town is the Nikon D300. However if Nikon holds true to form
they will soon release a much less expensive version with essentially
identical capabilities because they have to defray the costs of the sensor
and the autofocus module.

I agree. My recent move away from Pentax was made because I wanted
optimum AF performance in action photography. Pentax is improving, but
the AF system -- while great for most uses -- is not trying to compete at
the extreme end of performance.

So if action shots weren't important to me I'd have upgraded my K100D to
a K20D... those extra pixels give a lot of 'crop zoom' for anyone
interested in telephoto work.

Anyway, I spent a long time trying to decide between 40D and D300 for
reasons which probably won't fit in with the OP's remit. However the
clincher for me -- apart from Canon's pricing -- was when I went to a
shop and held both cameras. The 40D's grip felt perfect in my hand...
*far* more comfortable than my K100D, and more natural -- for my hand
anyway -- than the D300. In theory I was only interested with technical
performance, but I had to reluctantly admit that the ergonomics of a tool
will always play a part in the decision.

Having said that, I'm sure I'd have coped perfectly well if I's just
bought one or the other mail order.

If cost is important, consider the Nikon D40/D40x/D60. Do go to the shop
and hold the cameras - I was open between Canon and Nikon, having no
lenses from either, and the Nikon immediately felt more comfortable to me
than the Canon. I've had my D40 for some months now, and been very
pleased with the results. Today, I would get the 18-55mm VR (image
stabilised) lens, or even the 16-85mm VR lens.

If cost is important, consider the Nikon D40/D40x/D60. Do go to the shop
and hold the cameras - I was open between Canon and Nikon, having no
lenses from either, and the Nikon immediately felt more comfortable to me
than the Canon. I've had my D40 for some months now, and been very
pleased with the results. Today, I would get the 18-55mm VR (image
stabilised) lens, or even the 16-85mm VR lens.

Very good for the money indeed. I had it before the D40x and now the D300.
Considering the little difference in money I would now go for the D60. The
MP difference is pretty big and if not for printing, it still gives
advantage for cropping and sharper pics.
I would get it with the 18-135; it gives just enough zoom to keep going for
some time without having to get an new lens. The picture quality is one of
the best in it's price range. Even better then the more expensive 18-70.

Very good for the money indeed. I had it before the D40x and now the
D300. Considering the little difference in money I would now go for
the D60. The MP difference is pretty big and if not for printing, it
still gives advantage for cropping and sharper pics.
I would get it with the 18-135; it gives just enough zoom to keep
going for some time without having to get an new lens. The picture
quality is one of the best in it's price range. Even better then the
more expensive 18-70.

Click to expand...

I tend to take quite a lot of telephoto shots, and I find the
in-viewfinder stabilisation from the VR lenses a great help (particularly
at 300mm), so VR is almost a "must" when I get lenses. But you are
right - the 18-135mm is a good general purpose lens, and there is a VR
offering at 18-200mm for those who want just a single lens with VR.

Very good for the money indeed. I had it before the D40x and now the
D300. Considering the little difference in money I would now go for
the D60. The MP difference is pretty big and if not for printing, it
still gives advantage for cropping and sharper pics.
I would get it with the 18-135; it gives just enough zoom to keep
going for some time without having to get an new lens. The picture
quality is one of the best in it's price range. Even better then the
more expensive 18-70.

Click to expand...

I tend to take quite a lot of telephoto shots, and I find the
in-viewfinder stabilisation from the VR lenses a great help (particularly
at 300mm), so VR is almost a "must" when I get lenses. But you are
right - the 18-135mm is a good general purpose lens, and there is a VR
offering at 18-200mm for those who want just a single lens with VR.

Click to expand...

Sure. At focal lenghts longer than 135 I'd want/need VR too.
Until that, I got some VR in my body ;-|) I was a sharp shooter for a few
years with revolver and pistol. The techniques I learned for breathing,
standing, etc. still help me get sharp shots at up to 1/10 sec. without VR.

"David J Taylor" []
I got the D40 as I don't really need more than 6MP for my work.

Very good for the money indeed. I had it before the D40x and now the
D300. Considering the little difference in money I would now go for
the D60. The MP difference is pretty big and if not for printing, it
still gives advantage for cropping and sharper pics.
I would get it with the 18-135; it gives just enough zoom to keep
going for some time without having to get an new lens. The picture
quality is one of the best in it's price range. Even better then the
more expensive 18-70.

Click to expand...

I tend to take quite a lot of telephoto shots, and I find the
in-viewfinder stabilisation from the VR lenses a great help (particularly
at 300mm), so VR is almost a "must" when I get lenses. But you are
right - the 18-135mm is a good general purpose lens, and there is a VR
offering at 18-200mm for those who want just a single lens with VR.

Click to expand...

Sure. At focal lenghts longer than 135 I'd want/need VR too.
Until that, I got some VR in my body ;-|) I was a sharp shooter for a few
years with revolver and pistol. The techniques I learned for breathing,
standing, etc. still help me get sharp shots at up to 1/10 sec. without
VR.

Focus wrote:
"David J Taylor"
[]
I got the D40 as I don't really need more than 6MP for my work.

Very good for the money indeed. I had it before the D40x and now the
D300. Considering the little difference in money I would now go for
the D60. The MP difference is pretty big and if not for printing, it
still gives advantage for cropping and sharper pics.
I would get it with the 18-135; it gives just enough zoom to keep
going for some time without having to get an new lens. The picture
quality is one of the best in it's price range. Even better then the
more expensive 18-70.

I tend to take quite a lot of telephoto shots, and I find the
in-viewfinder stabilisation from the VR lenses a great help
(particularly at 300mm), so VR is almost a "must" when I get lenses.
But you are right - the 18-135mm is a good general purpose lens, and
there is a VR offering at 18-200mm for those who want just a single lens
with VR.

Click to expand...

Sure. At focal lenghts longer than 135 I'd want/need VR too.
Until that, I got some VR in my body ;-|) I was a sharp shooter for a few
years with revolver and pistol. The techniques I learned for breathing,
standing, etc. still help me get sharp shots at up to 1/10 sec. without
VR.

Click to expand...

Examples?

Click to expand...

No they were all killed... O, you mean the pictures? See new postings..

I agree. My recent move away from Pentax was made because I wanted
optimum AF performance in action photography. Pentax is improving, but
the AF system -- while great for most uses -- is not trying to compete at
the extreme end of performance.

So if action shots weren't important to me I'd have upgraded my K100D to
a K20D... those extra pixels give a lot of 'crop zoom' for anyone
interested in telephoto work.

Anyway, I spent a long time trying to decide between 40D and D300 for
reasons which probably won't fit in with the OP's remit. However the
clincher for me -- apart from Canon's pricing -- was when I went to a
shop and held both cameras. The 40D's grip felt perfect in my hand...
*far* more comfortable than my K100D, and more natural -- for my hand
anyway -- than the D300. In theory I was only interested with technical
performance, but I had to reluctantly admit that the ergonomics of a tool
will always play a part in the decision.

Having said that, I'm sure I'd have coped perfectly well if I's just
bought one or the other mail order.

Andrew McP

Click to expand...

The feel of the camera was very important to me. I wanted a small DSLR,
something about the size of my Nikon FM-2n and FM-3A. The Olympus E-410
seemed to be it.. Then I got to hold of a Canon 30D with a battery grip
and a hand strap. It seems like a monster, but the darn thing just seems
to hang on to you.

Welcome to Photography Forums!

Welcome to the Photography Forums where you can ask questions or find answers on anything related to photography, cameras and techniques.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask photography related questions or chat with the community and help others.
Ask a Question